I just thought of this philosophy while watching "The Art Of War" with Wesley Snipes. Listen, a thing has to have the potential to exist in order to exist. But a thing that has the potential to exist need not exist. In "The Art Of War" (the movie), this woman says, "the art of war (a book) teaches us to destroy our enemy from within..." Sometimes a spy or a conman would befriend someone as a means of obtaining something precious. But what would be the case if the tables are turned and the spy or conman is being played? How can either side have knowledge of whether the potential for friendship exists or not before being sure that they can find a "friend" in each other? Are we to wonder if the spy or conman are qualified for the job?... or, are we to simply dismiss it as an issue of perceptiveness, where the spyee will never fall for any trick and thus could never be befriended? Is it merely an issue of friendship? Trust? Perceptiveness? Or something deeper, something more universal, concerning actual existence vs potential for existence?
Confused. A 'thing' has no 'potential' as you speak of it. 'Potential' is not a 'thing' yet, and has no 'existence', but is 'potentiallly' a thing. Once the 'potential' becomes a 'thing', then it is brought into existence. You have the potential to think. Once you think a thought, the thought now exists. It is the 'thinking' that 'exists, not the potential. The entire quantum field (mind) is 'potential', pure and simple. An 'existence' comes into being when the 'potential is destroyed' by 'collapsing' into one of a relatively infinite number of 'potential futures'. Now, there is a 'thing' existing. Is your question how can one discern 'truth' while dealing in an ocean of lies and subterfuge? "Lay with dogs, wake with fleas!" *__-
From another point of view everything already exists, just the forms change. The physics law of the conservation of energy.
Forms can be seen from a perspective. If you put on goggles that let you see everything at the most basic energy level, everything you see would be a uniform "mass" with different concentrations of the "stuff" that makes it all, because everything that is this universe is the energy, even space itself. (I'm not talking about the possible multiverse space).
Forms.. If I am seeing the end-on view of a 'line', would that not actually be the quintessential 'point'? Would not a 90 degree perspective not be 'seeing' the quintessential 'line'? Perspective determining 'form'?
or perhaps the form determines on how you can look at it, see/detect it, that is to say - the structure of the universe determines how you can observe it (taking in mind our limited abilities to do so).
I certainly understand that perspective. But, for me, the available evidence reads that there is no 'out-there-one-size-fits-all' universe waiting, already there, for us to surround and observe, preexisting our birth and remaining beyond our death. The eye and the brain make the 'point'; the eye and the brain make the 'line' that we 'see' as 'out there'. I've also found too many indissoluble paradoxes along that line of reasoning. Even my 'line and point' example is a poor metaphor as it implies an 'item' 'out there' that remains unaffected in itself no matter who is looking and from where. QM tells us that this cannot be so; that the observer and the observed are intricately 'connected' facets of the same 'event/manifestation'. Neither one can safely be removed from the 'picture' without altering the 'whole', often beyond recognition. Sometimes (all times?) in the process of removing the observer from the 'game', the observed is instantly annhilated (removed from the 'picture' as well.). Be it all as it may, you are speaking of 'belief', of 'faith'. There has not been, nor can there be any way to know if there is any'thing' existing beyond 'mind' (right in front of your nose!); there has never been any such evidence. To 'believe' in an 'objective universe' is a matter of 'faith' rather than logic, experience or science. I have always been rather 'faith challenged', which is why I gravitate where I do sometimes. So, that is basically why I currently hold this perspective on metaphysical understanding. There is only evidence for 'something' 'in here'. I certainly understand the reasoning behind 'naive realism', but I have found that it has been thoroughly refuted. And I found the refutations to be valid and unrefuted successfully to date.
Of course, standart cosmology tells the same and I agree, but the connection at most times is inessential, like taking a grain of sand from the eastern part of the beach and putting it in the western. Now, you could rightly say that the beach is now different, the same as you can't step in the same river twice, but it doesn't change the fact that a beach exists or doesn't. Of course we could all be living in a computer simulation, but for all of our use there wouldn't be any difference either way.
Oh I most vehemently beg to differ! If that most famous venerable falling tree falls in the forest and there are none to hear it, it makes absolutely no sound. The ear is as essential to the sound as the eye is to the deep blue sky! Your beach might exist for yourself and a few lucky neighbors. While none of you perceive and conceive the 'same' beach, I think that it is fair to say that your 'beach' has absolutely no existence whatsoever in the day to day 'existence' of a tribe of, say, Tuaregs as they traverse their desert universe in their acting out of their lives. In their universe, your sweet, cool beach has no existence. Perhaps a rainbow might be a good example of what I mean. A rainbow is basically like a 'cone'. You (the mystical 'pot of gold' at the end of the rainbow) stand at the apex, the point, of the cone. As you look at the half-circle (other half is hidden by the earth/horizon...) the view of that bow is absolutely unique because the juxtaposition of all the elements, you the water vapor in the sky, the sun's position, etc... must all be in perfect juxtaposition from yourself (perspective) being at the apex. Someone else will be seeing an entirely different rainbow from their apex, their 'juxtaposition'. Ten people look to the sky, ten people oooh and ahhh over 'the' rainbow, nod in unison, but each was looking at an absolutely individually subjective 'reality'; literally ten people looking at ten unique rainbows. We all agree, though, for convenience sake, to refer to it as 'the' rainbow, that we all see... For convenience sake... Ahhh, we each and every one of us is a 'bio-computer simulation'!! The differences would be tremendous. For instance, were one living as some isolated component of some mechanistic universe, the brich would fall from the roof, hit you upon the head, you become a vegetable due to subsequent brain damage, pee yourself in elevators... BUT!!! Realizing the "Matrix-like" hologramic nature of our 'existences' and learning where we can... 'tweak the code' a bit.. sometimes we can be the breeze that blows that brick into the flowers, instead of yo' hed! *__- To me, that is a fantastic and thoroughly enjoyable paradigm in which to live. And it works! The 'proof' is most certainly in the 'pudding'! And it feels better to be a god in my universe than a cork upon the tempestuous waters of someone else's, and desperately trying to keep my nose above water! I payed my dues. I imagine that it must feel pretty powerless to be thrust into a pre-existent, mechanistic universe that just keeps trying to 'assimilate' you... My universe was born when I came into existence, and will cease to be when I go out of existence. In between, it is a most wonderful playground filled with marvelous and most interesting people and wonders of such exquisite beauty reflected in a single dewdrop, cold against the morning sky... "The potential to exist" If the 'quantum field' is, as I suspect, 'Mind/Consciousness', then both 'the potential to exist' and 'existence itself' all 'reside' within 'Mind/Consciousness'. There can be nothing 'outside' 'mind'..
I disagree. There still are sound waves that reflect on the surrounding physical world. In their subjective reality - yes, but not the objective. They still can travel to the beach and it'll be there. My universe is the objective reality that has been before this body and will remain after, and I'm a part of it, like everything else is. My subjective perception, mind, consciousness is physically noexistent, just a process - like the river in which you can't step in twice.
What is produced by the falling tree is a 'shockwave' (a horizontal pressure wave). This 'pressure wave' is, in itself, absolutely silent. This wave must somehow act upon your eardrum so bio-electric signals can stimulate certain portions of your brain thereby incorporating new data for your mental concept of 'sound', and your mental connection of that 'sound' that you hear with the falling of the tree that you 'see'.. You cannot accept the evidence of your senses and mind to accurately portray some 'objective reality'. So the closer they can (are willing) come to your particular perspective (they can not, under ordinary conditions, ever occupy your complete perspective. YOU are the apex!) the more that they can see 'reality' the way that YOU see 'your' reality? Why don't you try their 'perspective'? It is as valid to them as yours is for you! If you attempted their perspective, your 'beach' would vanish from your reality.. POOF!!! and probably the memories would fade also. You can have no knowledge of whether or not your universe pre-existed you or post-exists you. Therefore you are operating on faith and beliefs. I cannot argue with faith. So, your faith says that are a powerless cog in the gears of your universe? Mechanistically, through 'cause and effect', grinding on into your inevitable 'future'.. You 'like' that perspective? Is not saying that 'MY' universe is an 'objective reality' an oxymoron? and 'just a process - like the river in which you can't step twice'. Isnt that another? *__-
Of course, but by sound I ment the sound waves, not my interpretation of it. What are you arguing about? I'm not saying that the beach will look identical to me and some other person, just that we both at the same time and location will perceive something that looks like a beach. Not really, I am the universe. Of course, this body will disintegrate after some time. But there would be no life with no death anyway. By "my" I didn't say that with the idea of "my" ego, mind, consciousness in mind, but with the idea of the atomic structure and composition of this body and the energy it holds in itself.
I think that you are missing my point. There is no 'sound' outside of your (interpertation of it) mind. No 'objective' thing that you can point to, beyond your own mind, as 'sound'. In front of your nose, the (your) universe is absolutely silent. There has never been any evidence of an 'objective' anything. I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Different 'perspectives', perhaps.. Not really, I am the universe. In what way do you mean this? 'With the idea of the atomic structure and composition of this body and the energy it holds in itself'? Intellectually? Experientially? Do you enjoy universal Consciousness/Awareness? Good night.
Simple, everything that exists in this universe is this universe. Humans tend to imagine that they are something seperate from the mixture of gas they breathe and the earth they walk upon. Unconsciousness. I agree. Quite different indeed. Goodnight
